BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

701 results for “section 68”+ Section 36(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,438Mumbai2,898Bangalore1,020Ahmedabad724Chennai701Karnataka642Jaipur616Kolkata571Hyderabad386Chandigarh335Indore269Surat247Pune232Cochin226Visakhapatnam131Raipur123Rajkot118Nagpur107Agra102Telangana85Cuttack81Guwahati74Lucknow72Calcutta64Amritsar63SC59Allahabad42Ranchi37Patna33Panaji32Jodhpur27Varanasi21Dehradun20Jabalpur15Rajasthan10Orissa9Kerala7Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 4090Section 19561Disallowance53Addition to Income50Deduction46Section 8028Section 526TDS25Section 80H24Section 153A

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

68,76,690 21,53,308 7,17,42,510 3,76,53,308 2016-17 98,29,529 30,56,909 8,87,83,560 5,63,13,914 2017-18 1,44,35,318 50,05,920 1,64,84,811 62,86,626 2018-19 1,73,70,240 60,21,575 2,15,16,725 1

Showing 1–20 of 701 · Page 1 of 36

...
23
Section 80I18
Section 14A15

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

68,76,690 21,53,308 7,17,42,510 3,76,53,308 2016-17 98,29,529 30,56,909 8,87,83,560 5,63,13,914 2017-18 1,44,35,318 50,05,920 1,64,84,811 62,86,626 2018-19 1,73,70,240 60,21,575 2,15,16,725 1

SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1418/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1417 & 1418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Jain, V. Income-Tax, No. 123, Usman Road, Central Circle 1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 153ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

section 36(1)(iii) of interest expenditure incurred in connection with security deposit. Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenditure - Tribunal upheld disallowance holding that assessee could not submit any evidence to prove that said premises was used for its business purposes - High Court held that as facts were dealt with in detail by Tribunal and no cogent evidence could

SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1417/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1417 & 1418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Jain, V. Income-Tax, No. 123, Usman Road, Central Circle 1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 153ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

section 36(1)(iii) of interest expenditure incurred in connection with security deposit. Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenditure - Tribunal upheld disallowance holding that assessee could not submit any evidence to prove that said premises was used for its business purposes - High Court held that as facts were dealt with in detail by Tribunal and no cogent evidence could

M/S. CEEBROS HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3372/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 09.02.2021
Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

36(l)(iii lays down the test of putting to use the asset as the criteria for the claim of the cost of borrowing, It was submitted that the asset was already put to use by the appellant by way of commencement of the housing project. The appellant also raised the issue pertaining to “matching concept”. The company cited

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

iii) an undertaking referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80- IB; (h) "long-term finance" means any loan or advance where the terms under which moneys are loaned or advanced provide for repayment along with interest thereof during a period of not less than five years;” Thus, as can be seen from the statutory provisions, undisputedly

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 858/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

III) Further it was noticed that entire advances of rural branches taken into account while determining 109% of aggregate average advances which resulted in excess deduction of Rs.2,60,64,200/-. IV) Without prejudice to above as per the explanation to provisions of section 36(1)(via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERTATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 854/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

III) Further it was noticed that entire advances of rural branches taken into account while determining 109% of aggregate average advances which resulted in excess deduction of Rs.2,60,64,200/-. IV) Without prejudice to above as per the explanation to provisions of section 36(1)(via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPRUAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 856/CHNY/2020[202-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

III) Further it was noticed that entire advances of rural branches taken into account while determining 109% of aggregate average advances which resulted in excess deduction of Rs.2,60,64,200/-. IV) Without prejudice to above as per the explanation to provisions of section 36(1)(via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-II,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 857/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

III) Further it was noticed that entire advances of rural branches taken into account while determining 109% of aggregate average advances which resulted in excess deduction of Rs.2,60,64,200/-. IV) Without prejudice to above as per the explanation to provisions of section 36(1)(via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained

THE CUDDALORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2645/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

III) Further it was noticed that entire advances of rural branches taken into account while determining 109% of aggregate average advances which resulted in excess deduction of Rs.2,60,64,200/-. IV) Without prejudice to above as per the explanation to provisions of section 36(1)(via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 855/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

III) Further it was noticed that entire advances of rural branches taken into account while determining 109% of aggregate average advances which resulted in excess deduction of Rs.2,60,64,200/-. IV) Without prejudice to above as per the explanation to provisions of section 36(1)(via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, CUDDALLORE vs. M/S VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 981/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

III) Further it was noticed that entire advances of rural branches taken into account while determining 109% of aggregate average advances which resulted in excess deduction of Rs.2,60,64,200/-. IV) Without prejudice to above as per the explanation to provisions of section 36(1)(via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee appeals ITA Nos

ITA 496/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate and Shri.C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, Adl. CIT
Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

III (Chen) holding that taxonomy of provision had been done by assessee to keep it in line with RBl and NABARD guidelines, but in pith and substance where provision had been created for 'Bad and Doubtful Debts', deduction was claimed in accordance with section 36(1 )(viia) and assessee was entitled to benefit of same. 15.Without prejudice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JSR INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153CSection 801ASection 80I

III, Bangalore Vs M/s Wipro Limited wherein the Apex Court has ore Vs M/s Wipro Limited wherein the Apex Court has held that the "Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by held that the "Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by held that the "Revenue is right in submitting that the revised

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

68,89,00,000 under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act; and o Disallowance of interest expenditure of INR 5,70,62,500 under Section 36(1)(iii

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

68,89,00,000 under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act; and o Disallowance of interest expenditure of INR 5,70,62,500 under Section 36(1)(iii

DCIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2232/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A

section 36(l)(iii) of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the test of commercial expediency as laid down in the case of M/s S A Builders (288 ITR 1) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been satisfied by the assessee in the present case. 4. The CIT(A) has completely overlooked that

DCIT, TRICHY vs. THE PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, PUDUKKOTTAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1198/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathianarayanan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

68,750.00 5.4. The veracity of the claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act was verified in the light of the submissions made by the A.R. of the appellant vis-a-vis the facts submitted by him and the conclusion arrived at by the AssessingOfficer. It is seen from the records that the appellant had claimed

THE DHARMAPURI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.,DHARMAPURI vs. JCIT, SALEM

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistcial purposes to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1188/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1188/Chny/2016 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Dharmapuri District Central Jcit बनाम/ Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Range-Iii No.81/10H, Bye Pass Road, Salem. Vs. Dharmapuri – 636 701 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat-3148-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19-04-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13-07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

III No.81/10H, Bye Pass Road, Salem. Vs. Dharmapuri – 636 701 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAAAT-3148-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. AR ""थ" की ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19-04-2022 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख